in terms of getting you a link to rav yosef’s teshuvah, i don’t know if it’s online, but I’m looking for the source and if I can’t find you a link I’ll at least give you the reference.

i am not saying there is no place for institutions that service and provide spiritually for the spread out and sub-urbanized Jewish populace, I am just saying that placing a stamp of approval on a practice that is far removed from the torah is an example of an extreme tendency found on the “other end” of today’s Jewish spectrum. Other examples of reforming-extremist positions abound in the Reform movement to a much more tangible degree.
—

it is interesting that you bring up sotah 14. i was just reading in dubnow’s history of chassidism, the way in which this principle got lost among chassidim. the concept of dvekuth was believed by early chassidim to be the internalization of such midoth as “just as He clothes the naked, so shall you cloth the naked”. however as chassidism became more entranced by otherworldly mysticism dubnow observes that dvekuth takes on a new meaning, that instead of cleaving to god through imitation, one cleave directly through prayer and thought alone. in keeping with this move towards mysticism and away from this world, dubnow notes that chassidism in fact does begin to place more emphasis on mitzvahs bein adam l’mokum, assigning mitzvahs bein adam l’chaveiro a secondary position. once, again, i am not agreeing with such a philosophy, but rather presenting it as entering Jewish tradition in a way that has continued to effect the world we live in today.
–
yes, you are right to say that being just, or compassionate as my translation has it, is a case in which the mitzvah falls in both categories insofar as we are imitating god. we were always in agreement that spitting on that girl was a chilul hashem.

the remaining questions are two (1) is my understanding of chilul hashem regarding public sin wrong and why? (2) if it is not, is there a hierarchy of hilul hashems? (3) in addition i would like further proof that my premise that “moderate approaches to halakhah in a contemporary context is a form of extremism” is intellectually dishonest. you admit the existence of personal extremism, what does extremism mean to you? is it only found among the charedi kanoiim? for me extremism in the jewish torah context is a radical reworking of understanding that breaks from the chalachic tradition. for me looking at the historical context of Jewish tradition (and removing ourselves completely from the conversation on modesty), placing the shul attendance on shabbos above the laws of the sabbath itself appears extreme, just as allowing the individual to decide what constitutes malacha, seems extreme.

or perhaps we are just moving through an extreme time of change so all extremes, excluding the morally heinous are mevatel…

i am also uncomfortable with the notion that haredi Judaism has a monopoly on defining ratzon hashem, in fact, I am very confident that by no means do they represent authentic Jewish practice by any accord.

from the Torah through the tannaim, amoraim, geonim, rishonim and any aharon worth their salt, the overwhelming call of Judaism is to be just to our fellow human. Sota 14a frames this very nicely, so making a distinction between mitzvot bein adam l’haveiro and bein adam la’makom is a false dichotomy. bring cruel to our fellow humans IS a hillul hashem, in other words.

In terms of the Three Oaths, all three have been broken — two have been broken by the modern state of Israel and the third by most of the world. But that the Three Oaths were broken does not, as you say yourself, give credence to this despicable show which was put on in Mea She’arim.

In terms of violation of Shabbos, you seem to be a pretty learned individual, so I would point you to the teshuvah written by Rav Ovadia Yosef who claims that since most Jewish people live in a secular society, b’farhesia (public) becomes b’tzina (private) because we (shabbos observant Jews) are on their (secular Jews) turf and therefore one who is m’halel shabbat (desecrating the sabbath) publicly, in our modern context, is usually not l’hakhis (out of spite), therefore even non-observant Jews should be given honors in a synagogue. None of this is to even speak of that fact that many Jews who go to Orthodox shuls in the US drive and park a few blocks away which absolutely constitutes g’neivat da’at (theft of mind) in the hopes of preserving ma’arat ayin (appearance of impropriety).

In terms of making a distinction between mainstream and fringe haredim — there are many people who live by haredi custom who do not inflict it on others, I do believe there is a difference between personal extremism and extremism inflicted on others. and I wholeheartedly reject your premise that moderate approaches to halakhah in a contemporary context is a form of extremism — that argument is filled with logical problems not to mention it is completely intellectually dishonest.

—
a separate point has to do with the notion of extremism, how it is measured and in what contexts it is found. surely looking at todays Jewish world population, reactionary Charedism is an extreme form of Jewish practice, one not shared or even approximated by world Jewry. the question for me is what separates “mainstream ultra-orthodox” from what the author labels “extremists”? is it their actions on the street? the “mainstream” may very well believe much of what the extremists believe, but as long as its in their hearts and not in the street, is it okay?

in the context of mitzvahs, clearly there are levels of extremism too, however this extremism should not be measured with regard to population, simply because most Jews don’t know the mitzvahs (that is to say that population cannot be “polled” to determine halacha).

Just as spitting on an 8-year old is an abominable extreme interpretation of the torah’s mitzvahs regarding modesty, so it would appear that openly desecrating the Sabbath is too an extreme, one that the reforming movements referenced in the blog post have placed their approval on (The Conservative Movement in America, for one, controversially still allows driving to shul on the Sabbath)

Looking at the wider Jewish population, one can remark that its great that these reforming movements are attracting people to embrace their Jewishness in someway, however the point remains that extremism has many faces and contexts and is thriving not only on the streets of Beit Shemesh and Jerusalem, but among the Jewish people’s majority as well.